' MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.---This First Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been filed by the Province of Punjab and 4 others against order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, dated 5-3-1988, whereby he enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector from Rs,150 to Rs,300 per marla.
2. Before the appeal could be argued on merits, two preliminary objections were raised by learned counsel for the respondent; Firstly that the appeal is barred by time and secondly that the appeal on behalf of appellants Nos.1, 3 and 4 has not been filed by duly authorized person while appellants Nos.2 and 5 being not aggrieved persons have no right to file the appeal.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that both these objections are well-taken. As regards limitation, the appeal, which is directed against order, dated 5-3-1988, was presented within time in this Court on 26th June, 1988, when the office raised such objections and directed that the appeal be refiled within two days after removing the same. Unfortunately, however, the appeal was not refiled till 4-12-1990 and then too without removing the objections with the result that it was again returned by the office on 12-12-1990. Again the appeal was refiled after a delay of almost 9 months on 10th September, 1991. From the above, it is obvious that the appeal when finally presented in accordance with the rules, was barred by about three years and six months.
4. The appellants have applied for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal through C.M.
No,2-C of 1991 under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The only ground given in the application is that the appeal could not be filed earlier after removing the objections as the receipt for deposit of charges was not traceable. To say the least, this explanation hardly furnishes any justification for condoning the delay. It is evident on the face of the record that the appellants have been grossly negligent in prosecuting the matter. As is obvious from the above, it took about 3 years for the appellants to remove the office objections and to refile the appeal. Even if the receipt for printing charges was not available, the appeal could have been filed alongwith an application explaining that the amount stood deposited which fact could be verified from the record of this Court. There appears to be no reason for the condoning the inordinate delay for about three years and six months and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Mohiuddin v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad, Karachi and Khairpur Divisions and A another 1970 SCM R 428.
5. The other objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent is equally well-founded. As ruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in ICI Pakistan Limited v. Salahuddin and others 1991 SCM R 15 and Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others 1991 SCM R 2193 the person or authority for whose benefit the land has been acquired has no locus standi to file any appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That being so, the appeal on behalf of appellants Nos.2 and 5 is not maintainable on this score. So far as appellants Nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, it is conceded by Mr. Tariq Kamal Qazi, Advocate, that he does not hold any power of attorney from them. He admits that the memorandum of appeal should have been signed and presented by the learned Advocate-General but according to him, it was due to an inadvertent omission that the learned Advocate-General could not do so. Even if it be so, it is to be noted that despite the fact that an objection in this behalf was raised by the respondent by filing C.M. 2-C of 1992 on 12th October, 1992, no effort has been made by the appellants to have this omission rectified. We are, therefore, left with no option but to dismiss the appeal on behalf of appellants Nos.1, 3 and 4 as not having been validly filed.
6. In the end, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the order under appeal suffers from an error patent on the record inasmuch as the rate at which the respondent has been allowed compound interest (i,e, 15% per annum) is contrary to the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which the interest can only be awarded at the rate of 8% per annum on compound basis. Learned counsel for the respondent conceded this position and stated that he has no objection if the decree is modified to that extent.
' In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs except to the extent that the direction to pay compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall stand substituted by payment of compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of possession of the land to the date of the payment, on the unpaid amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court.